26 Oct 2023
Leave to appeal was dismissed because the Court of Appeal correctly applied the orthodox principle that costs follow the event; MD did not demonstrate a miscarriage of justice or a question of public or general importance that would justify granting leave, and therefore the costs award was appropriate and the stay application falls away.
15 Feb 2022
Because Mr Ross was unsuccessful in both the substantive judicial review and the recall application, and no grounds under r14.7 justify reduction, the Court ordered Mr Ross to pay costs to counsel assisting (S P Jerebine) on a 2B basis: $11,113.50 for the substantive proceedings and $3,585 for the recall; public funds should not be used to fund Mr Ross's litigation and if counsel has already been paid from public funds the awarded sums are to be paid to the Attorney‑General/Solicitor‑General's account.
2 Jun 2009
The November 2007 direction was invalid to the extent it delegated to the Ministry adjudicative decisions properly for the court—notably placements, separation of siblings and terms of contact—without sufficient judicial determination of those matters; the uplift was carried out in a traumatic manner and lacked necessary planning and conditions, undermining the children's best interests; consequently the guardianship decision was partially set aside in outcome (eldest child returned), while the two younger children remained with father subject to review and planning to determine whether paren…
5 Nov 2007
Interim relief was refused because the applicants had negligible prospects of success: there was insufficient evidence of pre-determination and no credible evidence that removal would expose the citizen child to significant risk in Chile; the child's medical condition had been successfully treated and further appointments were routine; the delay to the appointment resulted from applicants' own interventions and access to necessary evidence could be preserved without restraining removal.